A Letter to Murray McCully

Mr.McCully,

I understand that you’re voted in for your opinions and preferences, but I can’t let it pass without comment that you changed your vote to change your support of Marriage Equality to be opposed to it.

As the National MP in the ECB you’ve secured my vote for the previous elections. Mostly because you’re inoffensive and are in a party that by and large suits my own thinking. By and large.

Being the intelligent, well travelled, and well rounded man that you are I can’t begin to understand how you can vote against something that I’ve enjoyed for coming up to 25 years this year, that of being married.

I can’t begin to understand how you could support it one day and be against it the next. You’re now one of only 4 people who’ve been swayed, cajoled, or harangued into taking a contrary position to one which you came to on your own.

I’d lay Dollars to Cents that you’ve been lobbied by the religious element in this. Modern marriage is a construct of religion, religion that does all it can to deny minorities the status that they themselves confer upon themselves.

The world will not end, churches will not crumble, men will not start eyeing me up lustily in the streets, people will go about their lives. Traditional marriage, and denial of it to all people, is about religious dogma. Traditional Marriage isn’t for life, as the number of divorces will attest. Marriage isn’t for everyone, else everyone would be married.

At a time when Atheism or non-religion becomes more prevalent and religious dogma and teaching become less relevant you find yourself in a position where you are in danger of becoming a dinosaur of a past age.

Mr. MCully I ask you, if you could travel back in time would you yourself would have voted for women’s suffrage? And whilst not comparable in moving society forward, I ask you why you would vote against Marriage Equality, something that clearly brings equity to everyone?

I’d ask that you do me the service of not sending me a stock/form reply, because that’s just avoidance, and my one vote might not make a difference, but then again it might.

Philip Walter

And the reply:

via pbubyah.com

via pbubyah.com

 

Source:  pdubyah.com

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • BJ

    Spot on Murray McCully

    • Dumrse

      + 1

    • Gazzaw

      +2

  • ” Modern marriage is a construct of religion,”

    If you really believed the above to be true, why on earth would you want to have a part of it if you are so offended by it?

  • Good on Murray McCully (and Tony Ryall).

    Not cowed by the bullying of the homosexual sympathizers in the mainstream media and blogosphere, or the Labour light Progressives who dominate National (and their weak “marriage equality” propaganda), but making up their own minds.

    Refreshing to see.

  • John.Doe.

    Dear Murray,
    Thank you for your considered, and in my opinion, rational way you have handled the question over so-called marriage equality. I believe you were right to vote for the disucssion, but then after hearing the debate voting as you saw fit.
    I cant believe that you would have been swayed by any church group lobbying, nor gay rights actvists (of which your place of work seems full of).
    I also appreciate the brevity in which you have dealt with the repsonse, meaning you can return to working on your very important portfolio.
    Kind regards,
    John Doe.
    ECB Voter

  • CoNZervative

    Philip, people have divergent opinions on this for various legitimate and perfectly reasonable reasons. Supporting marriage amendment is not a default holy righteousness, it is debatable. If Murray McC votes as you wish, he’ll upset the other half of his electorate. People have differing opinions, get over it. (And p.s., religious people are as entitled to lobby as anyone else. It’s a democracy).

  • Stephen

    What about the 40 MPs that voted NO first up? At least McCully voted to send the bill to the select committee.

  • fozzie2

    Go Philip ! Proud to say I never voted for the idiot . Always regarded him as the MP in striped pajamas !

    • Gazzaw

      Idiot? Why fozzie?

  • MarkF

    Random Impertinent Question:
    I wonder how many voters in Murray Mccully,s electorate belong to the City Impact Church?

    • Gazzaw

      So what Mark? They are his constituents and he represents them.

    • I completely agree, how dare people who go to church have the right to an opinion. Church goers should just be seen and not herd.

      To be serious for a moment, the population of ECB is much much greater than the number of people who go to City Impact. And I’m sure Murray is smart enough to know that and to listen to the electorate, not just one very small group.

      • MarkF

        One small group! Don’t delude yourself. One word, many thousands of votes gone!

        • By that logic WhaleOil can’t vote either, and should be ignored by all. He says one small word and thousands of votes can change. Or is it church goers who can’t think for themselves and blindly do as they are told?

          • MarkF

            “Or is it church goers who can’t think for themselves and blindly do as they are told?” In the case of that congregation probably, yes.

          • I have been there several times, and have friends who go there, and I enjoyed each visit. However, I also have a friend who left that church because he felt pressured to vote for, and campaign for, their candidate for MP when he was a McCully supporter. So I guess there is some validity in your statement.

            Just remember that, while I big church, they only represent a small percentage of the electorate and while some of them may be blinded, the majority of the electorate are just as opinionated as an average reasonable person. And I’m sure McCully knows that.

  • RightOfGenghis

    Just proves he’s closer to the pulse of the electorate than most of his colleagues. It won’t do him any harm in the only poll that counts

  • Apolonia

    I understand he surveyed his electorate to see how he should represent THEM in the House of representatives.

  • JeffDaRef

    Dont see anything wrong with McCully’s response – he’s said quite succinctly what he believes – and managed to do so with none of the hysteria often seen at either extreme of the debate.

  • unsol

    A shame but not surprising McCully offered no opinion on why he thinks marriage is meant to always preclude LGBT couples.

    On the bright side it has been interesting to see how the debate has changed over the last couple of months or so.

    At first it seemed like the focus was based solely on the sexual relationship of LGBT coupled, and while some still obsess over this, the subject seems to have shifted towards the actual definition of marriage.

    Interestingly there is still a real lack of good robust debate on how marriage came to be part of basic societal make-up & how its definition has constantly changed/evolved as society has changed/evolved.

    500 years ago it would have been unthinkable that women were anything other than chattels that men could sell, rape, divorce or kill if they failed in their marital commitments -heirs – or if the men simply grew tired of for whatever reason. Let alone contemplating the idea of women having a say in society, working outside the home & having a choice about who they marry & how many -if any – children they will have.

    Then there was the fact that it would have been unthinkable that blacks could be anything other than slaves to be bought, sold etc, let alone possess the same rights & options as white people.

    So society & family structures have changed many times taking the definition of what it means to be ‘married’ along with them.

    What is always ignored and/or constantly lacking in substance, is an argument that proves why this societal change – something that started decades ago – is any different.

    • Hi Unsol,

      500 years ago it would have been unthinkable that women were anything other than chattels that men could sell, rape, divorce or kill if they failed in their marital commitments -heirs – or if the men simply grew tired of for whatever reason.

      That wouldn’t have been common in the West at all. You might need to read some different history books. Here’s a cool post on Authentic Feminism in History – probably not what you’d expect the situation of women to be like at all.

      Further & ironically, much of this emphatic defence of the so-called ‘true’ definition of marriage appears to have come from men. A group that would no doubt include at least one cheater.

      Surely my contribution, given that I am a blogger and a woman and that I’ve been blogging on this topic for longer than Whale has, counts for at least 10 men, maybe even 20.

      • Bunswalla

        No it doesn’t – not at all. Your view counts as precisely one person – no more and no less. Typical of you uppity wimmin to try and get more than your fair share, back into the kitchen you harpy.

        • Muffin

          What was her man thinking letting her out in the first place.

      • unsol

        Lucia you need to familiarize yourself with real historical sources rather than those from the Catholic Church. If you claim that the above didn’t happen up until at least the 17th Century – which I might add was in the Stuart period & included the Puritan Age in England, then you don’t know much about marriage & women’s history at all.

        This is basic stuff – some schools cover it in year 13, even 20 years ago.

        But then why would you know this kind of thing, your judgment has been clouded by the cultish indoctrination of the Catholic Church.

        And your church still doesn’t consider women as equal.

        • Unsol,

          You might want to look up the author of the book that was summarised. Regine Pernoud was a renowned French archivists and historian. She was an expert medievalist.

    • Dumrse

      “On the bright side it has been interesting to see how the debate has changed over the last couple of months or so”.

      We noticed in last Saturdays poll how the debate has changed and long may it continue to do so………..just my opinion mind you.

  • LesleyNZ

    Oh well – lots of votes for Murray from people I know in the Bays – now he has changed his yes vote to no. Such is democracy.

  • Murray could have done with a grammar checker, as I’m wondering what “Please do not hesitate to me” means, and this clearly is a quick form reply and shows that he cares less about what his constituents think.

    Of course the religious lobby would be strong on this, what else do they have to cling to other than their stone age thinking and moral standards they so often themselves fail at.

    I’m aware too that I vote for his opinions not mine.

    And why am I married, because it’s in society it seems perfectly normal and encouraged to be in a partnership, isn’t it?

    I have two adult hetrosexual children, I don’t have any agenda other than that it annoys me that your default position is “I think”. that is all. If only he’d thought, that would have been something,.

    • Are you saying he should have spent less time on being our Minister of Foreign Affairs and more time typing? Most likely the reply was dictated by Murray and is just a small grammatical error. From what I know of Murray he doesn’t like others writing things for him, so it is more likely his actual response to that individual letter.

53%